Presentation on theme: "DERMABOND® Topical Skin Adhesive"— Presentation transcript:
1DERMABOND® Topical Skin Adhesive The Final Layer of Protection
2DERMABOND® Adhesive is equivalent to other commercially available skin closure devices, studied effectively from small to long incisions up to 69cm.DERMABONDPLUS SUTURESSUTURESTAPLESSTRIPSClosure StrengthEquivalent to 4.0VarietyStrongestWeakMicrobial barrierYesZone of inhibitionNoCosmesisExcellentMay leave track marksInconsistentPatient Comfort - showeringCan Shower ImmediatelyNot recommended for period of timeNot recommendedFor period of timeEase of CareSimpleComplicatedEnduit to bacterial colonizationRemovalSloughs off naturallyMay need removalNeeds removalSelf removal
4Mechanism of action is a combination of monomer and plasticizers, that polymerizes to form a flexible/pliable adhesive filmSets or cures within seconds following final layerReaches full mechanical strength in 1 minIf needed, can be wiped from skin within 10 seconds after application or with a petroleum based product after settingAdhesive film sloughs or falls off wound within 7-10 days as skin re-epithelializeEquivalent to 7 days wound healing strength in 3 minutes1OCA: microns thick compared to other N- Butyls at : <50 microns thick1. Singer and Hollander, Lacerations in Acute Wounds: An evidence-based guide, p DERMABOND adhesive package insert3
5DERMBOND Adhesive has proven strength over n-butyls and n-butyl blends due to it’s unique formulation. This strength is critical for topical wound closure and microbial barrier.Wound Bursting StrengthCompliance Analysis
6In vivo studies demonstrated DERMABOND Adhesive microbial barrier provides greater protection than sutures alone as well as n-butyls/ n-butyl blend adhesives.
7DERMABOND® Adhesive has unique benefits that offer the potential to impact the cost of care. *Health and Economic Outcomes after OB-GYN Surgery: A Comparison of Skin Closure TechniquesSusan G. Murrmann, MD1, Jeffrey S. Markowitz, DrPH2, Elane M. Gutterman, PhD2, Glenn Magee, MBA31 University of Tennessee, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Memphis, TN 2 Health Data Analytics, Princeton Junction, NJ 3 Ethicon Inc., Somerville, NJSuturesStaplesOCASutures, Staples & OCAOverall P ValueSignificant pairwise comparisons1Overall P-ValueSignificant pairwise comparisons2Hysterectomy CohortN= 21,201N=23,441N=880N=489PercentUnadjusted AnalysisAdjusted Analysis 2Infection as reflected by non-prophylactic antibiotic treatment12.93%17.51%11.14%23.72%<0.00011a,3a,4a,5a,6a1a,3a,5a,6aUnadjusted MeansTotal costs (dollars)$5862$6965$5816$9434C-Section CohortN=102,797N=50,097N=2,391N=27212.83%12.76%9.50%13.97%2a,4a$5572$5594$5010$59492a,4a,6a1a,2a,4a,6a*Poster Presentation at 2008 Annual Clinical Meeting of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, New Orleans, LA, May 3-7, 2008